VW 2.0 16v electronic injection recomendations
Posted by Kurt Thiel
Chris Eyre Mod Moderator Location: London, UK Join Date: 09/07/2014 Age: Possibly Wise Posts: 39 |
There's limited benefit in comparing the VW engine to its competitors easy outputs. Lehmann told us what we need to know, by boring the thing to 84mm, lengthening the rods and shortening the stroke, mostly in the direction of the competition. With 88mm cylinder distances, these are the inherent issues with the unit.
Audi Sport, with freer touring car regulations, then told us the same and then added more pointers, by re-drilling the head bolt holes and skimming at an angle to try and make an improved pent-like combustion chamber. Putting that aside and if you're committed to the VW game, using stock dimensions (barring crown heights), the engines will do over 200bhp reliably. 
Maybe, just maybe, it’s down to the driver. VWMotorsport.info | SeatSport.info | 4 VW Golf Mk3 A59s exclusively revealed > here < |
Pete Remner Senior Moderator Location: Cleveland, Ohio Join Date: 01/11/2006 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 2,022 |
Only if you can bother to fit larger valves. Without adding valve area for more flow, you're just putting your machinist's kids through school 
Ah, angle milling. Which wouldn't have been necessary if VW hadn't designed the 4v head around trying to fit against the strut towers in a longitudinal chassis! Which is rather why angle milling used to be so popular in the US for various pushrod V8s. It knocks the valve angles down and closes the chambers up nicely. Nowadays, instead of angle-milling your 23 degree heads to 20 degrees, you can just buy 18 degree heads. Or 13 degree. Or 9 degree. Or just shitcan the whole engine and start with something designed in the 1990s instead of the 1950s. Pete Remner Cleveland, Ohio 1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing) 1978 Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver. |
Chris Eyre Mod Moderator Location: London, UK Join Date: 09/07/2014 Age: Possibly Wise Posts: 39 |
Stock 32mm / 27mm on the Lehmann engines = 260-280bhp - defined by FIA Kitcar regs. 34mm / 29.5 to 30mm on the Audi Touring car engines, but they were quoted as anything from 305 to 315bhp, though it was also a game of talking numbers to competitors. Totally different engine, shortblock, and engineering far beyond anything recognisable.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s down to the driver. VWMotorsport.info | SeatSport.info | 4 VW Golf Mk3 A59s exclusively revealed > here < |
A.J. Johnson Mega Moderator Location: Pendleton OR Join Date: 01/07/2011 Age: Settling Down Posts: 1,381 Rally Car: 88 Audi 80 |
Josh Wimpey Junior Moderator Location: VA Join Date: 12/27/2006 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 649 Rally Car: Sneak the Golf |
Paulinho Ferreira Professional Moderator Location: Charlotte, NC Join Date: 03/15/2007 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 721 Rally Car: Honda Civic |
Brian Klausen Mega Moderator Location: Denmark Join Date: 03/21/2006 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 388 Rally Car: VW Golf GTi 16V |
I have been rallying a VW Golf for over a decade now - about half of that with a 16V - though a 1.8.
I haven't had it even nearly at full tilt - both due to regulations and economy, but I have tried a few things, and obviously done a fair amount of research over the years. My current setup is stock intake and exhaust manifolds, a home ported head, stock valves, valve angles etc. - nothing really fancy, skimmed for around 11:1 in CR. Stock bottom end/bolts/everything in the block - not touched the slightest. Cams are Cat Cams 225-kit - asymmetric 283/278 degrees - look'em up on http://www.catcams.be for further specs. Basically they are pretty tame. Both this engine and the previous 8V has been under the management of a MegaSquirt 1 2.2 ECU running MS Extra for almost as long as I have had the car. Built, tuned, bla.bla. by myself - but I'll get to the ECU side of things. The above setup makes about 170-175 hp @ ~7200 rpm - low cost build, no hassle, no need for speciel fuel, no nothing. Cams were chosen as I used to have a stock gearbox with a 4.64 FD, and I am very happy that I stayed with those cams. I could just as easily have gone a step up, but was adviced against it by CatCams due to my transmission - that was good advice! My advice no. 1 to you: Basically do NOT bother with 220 or so hp NA from your engine without doing a LOT more work (and spending!) in the transmission department. Different FD is all good and fine - makes the torque multiplication better - but you will STILL be dropping out of the rev band if you do not do anything about the actual ratios of the individual gears - and particularly their relationship with each other. We have a different thread here somewhere regarding that, and I have supplied a spreadsheet where you can play around with ratios to show the rev range you will be in with different gear ratios. (EDIT: I just saw that you Kurt, were the thread starter for that thread - so obviously you know about that one. Doesn't change the point though  )
FD does not matter when matching with the engine - it is just for setting theoretical top speed! I currently run a "semi motorsports box", meaning that 1st and 2nd are stock, but 3rd, 4th and 5th are remachined for lower ratios and lower gaps between them. With my old transmission, the shift from 2nd to 3rd @7500 rpm meant a 2400 rpm drop. Bringing me to 5100 rpm in 3rd. That was barely to live with, with my mild cams. Imagine what having to pull out another 40-50 hp would do to the peakyness of the engine, and what it would be like to make that shift then... Mind you: 220 bhp from a VW 2.0 16V is likely to need another 500 to 1000 rpm to achieve than my 7500 rpm redline. Adding to the redline only worsens the drop in RPM - so instead of 2400 rpm when shifting @7500 rpm, you would be looking at a 2570 rpm drop @8000, and 2720 rpm drop @8500 rpm. My current transmission has reduced the drop in 2nd to 3rd @7500 rpm to around 1560 rpm - that's a change that makes ALL the difference on the road - with NO change in engine. So, first things first - in this case, the first thing is the tranny - and the reason the tranny is first, is that you are looking to a build (fairly) high HP NA-engine. No two ways about that... Secondly - as mentioned - I have been around MegaSquirts for over a decade. I have seen, heard and worked with a few other as well - to be truthful: they are all brilliant, and they are all shit! The power does NOT come from the ECU, and one ECU in itself, is not going to make significant power over another. A tuner that KNOWS his ECU, is going to make significant power - and most importantly - particularly in rally - significant drivability - over a tuner that does NOT know his ECU. So my second advice to you: Do NOT bother with choosing your ECU based on some bloke making a gazillion HP on that, somewhere halfway across the globe. What you want, is support and knowledge and ACCESSIBLE people - then the power output will follow. Lack of support will give you anything from blown engine over stranded project to a headache. MegaSquirt may not be the most hyper ECU you can get, but the affordability - particularly of the earlier models - has meant that everybody and their dog has one, or knows someone that does. The supportability of the MegaSquirt simply can't be beat - particularly on a larger scale. Now, you may live somewhere, where nobody hasn't ever heard of MegaSquirt, and those that has, hate it like the devil. In that case - do not chose one, unless you are dead set on taking the time to learn the stuff by yourself and then come back to re-educate the poor sobs. But make very sure that whatever you choose, it is based on a broad range of input, and you have somebody available when you are standing at the foot of the very steep learning curve that is associated with ECUs. Most issues with MegaSquirt that I have seen, are down to user errors. Very often poor installs - particularly in the wiring area. Yet many of these people tend not to look themselves in the eyes, and learn from the mistakes pointed out to them, but look to blame the hardware or software instead. Yes, there has been issues with MegaSquirt over the years, and particularly the old 2.2 board that I am running, has its fair amount of quirks, things to look out for, etc. - but nowadays it is a very stable and capable platform, at an extremely competitive price. Since my +10 years old 2.2 board is sort of a dead end for upgrading to a few features in MS2 that I want, I have just bought a MicroSquirt v3. It is a simple, rugged (which only some of the normal MS' are as well), and capable ECU, that sets you back 3-350 USD with the pigtail wiring harness and a MAP sensor. It will take most sensors you care to throw at it, and can be connected to quite a few ignition options. Not as many as the regular MS', but the ones it will handle, are rugged, stable, automotive grade, very available, and very affordable. You do get more possibilities with a regular MS, but with the MicroSquirt you get "good enough for most" AND ruggedness, all at a lower price - it is all a matter of priorities. Which bring me to my advice no. 3 to you: Obviously you need to choose your poison for yourself, but take a long good think about whether you want to be out rolling LEARNING to be competitive by DRIVING the car, or whether tinkering with various neat options that makes the car go wrooom in a slighty different (but not particularly more powerful) way, is more important to you. I am not saying that there isn't fun to be had from playing around with launch control, flatshift, fancy sequential shiftlights, sequential ignition, injection, coil on plug, etc. - but at the end of the day, that doesn't really matter much to the power output, and the ability of you and the car to be competitive. For a 4-banger of that vintage, simple wasted spark ignition and semi-batch-fire injection will suffice for the power levels that the actual engine hardware is capable of breathing in and out. Just about any old ECU will be able to support that - and likely more to. As for the learning curve, I myself feel very good about the TunerStudio software that most people use with *Squirt ECU's. I find it very intuitive, there are a ton of guides, etc. So if you are looking to start out and learn about it by yourself, then I feel there is no substitute for MegaSquirt. Everything for learning is plenty available - and probably more then for any other platform (most of which are likely to have little to nothing available). For learning about how an ECU works/can work, I feel that there is no better alternative than the MegaSquirt-range - and it is FAR ahead of any runners up. Now, if you know that you aren't going to spend much time with the laptop yourself - just hand it to your tuner - then that doesn't matter. Then what matters is what HE knows - and you should stick with that. In that case you shouldn't worry about the ECU too much - but more about HIM. Phew - long post - I hope it makes sense .Brgrds Brian  Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2014 04:38AM by wildert. |
John Vanlandingham Infallible Moderator Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA Join Date: 12/20/2005 Age: Fossilized Posts: 14,152 Rally Car: Saab 96 V4 |
Paulinho Ferreira Professional Moderator Location: Charlotte, NC Join Date: 03/15/2007 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 721 Rally Car: Honda Civic |
John Vanlandingham Infallible Moderator Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA Join Date: 12/20/2005 Age: Fossilized Posts: 14,152 Rally Car: Saab 96 V4 |
Brian Klausen Mega Moderator Location: Denmark Join Date: 03/21/2006 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 388 Rally Car: VW Golf GTi 16V |
NP
Absolutely... what I think sometimes goes wrong, is that guys in the US look to what is driven in Europe, and chose from that, not knowing why the choices in Europe are what they are. The thing is, our regulations are different. At least in Denmark, if we want to race a turbo charged car, we have basically just had the option of Group N-cars like Subies and Evo's. Well, that and a Sierra 2WD Cossie, 240 Turbo, and the (really) odd exotic like Lancia Deltas and the like. And mind you, that will have to be run under historic regulations, meaning special parts made from unobtainium at equal prices. In Sweden it is the same thing... Then recently we got the option to run a 1.6 litre turbo with the tiny 29-or-so-mm. restrictor in the same class that I am in - or obviously you could go for a proper R3T, R4T or R5T, but that's at a "slightly" different budget. But actually the 1.6 turbo with the restrictor makes a LOT of sense in this neck of the woods - partly for the exact same reasons that you are pushing the 2.3 turbos. And that reason is exactly the torque/power curve. If you chose the engine carefully (it has to retain the stock manifolds - same as I do) it will, with the restrictor, make a very comfortable 210-225 bhp depending on the turbo - and it will do that from very low rpm, all the way to the redline (that sits pretty low though). It will do that just with a remap, and obviously the FD is once again a nice addition for torque multiplier making the car faster overall, but the need for a CR-box is very low. The flip side is that it is mainly newer cars that come with a usefull 1.6 litre turbo engine. So getting the car is a bit pricey. At least in Denmark you can recuperate a fair amount of the money from selling stuff like leather interior, sat nav, etc., making it a somewhat economic option as far as rally cars go. Particularly considering that you wont need to shell out 8 to 10 grand for a sequential tranny with all the right parts. A NICE plate diff and an FD can be done for maybe 2-3 grand. Right now it actually probably the ultimate option for my class. We are - on paper - the slowest cars of the lot, but in reality that is not the case. The thing is, we drive "economic" cars, so we can afford to drive a lot, and we are not as worried about the car as the others - thus we drive much more to the limit. At least in Denmark, the stages are such that it makes a lot of difference that the driver is able to commit. I don't really consider myself much of a driving god by any measurement, but it is peculiar, that I could show up for the final event of the six that makes up the Danish national championship, and finish 24th overall out of 39 finishers, 46 starters, and 51 that signed up for the race - in the cheapest and oldest car. That actually included not having done ANY recce on stage 3 - and stages 1 to 5 being run in the night - with fog - and we have never tried rallying in the dark before. And we are talking several Grp. N4 cars, a WRC car, an S2000, an R5T, and a bunch of other fully spec'ed 2 litre screamers, S1600's and what not, in front of use. No shame in losing to them. Actually our class winner made 14th overall - something to think about... he drives a Peugeot 206 RC - stock - as stock... just a different aircleaner and a slight remap - 2.0 16V putting out the factory 180 hp after the remap. Money has been put into suspenders, FD and diff, all the safety equipment, and the a few bits and bobs like bushings, etc. Now, this may be down to the fairly twisty roads that we have (though they weren't all that twisty compared to what we usually see) as opposed to the allegedly highway-like stages that you guys have - but still... getting out there and putting the hammer down time after time, is worth 10 engines - and makes the "real" engine perform a lot better once you actually get it.
Maybe comparing apples to apples would be nice for a start. For the price of a 280-or-so-ish hp 2 litre NA screamer AND the sequential - or at least proper CR - tranny that actually makes the engine more useful than a paperweight or something to make 13 year-olds wank of to on the internet, you would EASILY have 280 bhp from a 2.3 8V turbo with the response and delivery you would want. Actually - you will have those 280 bhp at half the price of the 2 litre screamer. Now, any old 2300 8V turbo with archaic turbo charger maybe a bit laggy - but likely only a bit - with some of the stock parts. But it will also only be somewhere between a tenth to a fifth of the price of the 2.0 NA. That you haven't seen them set the stages a light says more about the drivers than the cars - please also see above about the situation in my country. Brgrds Brian Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2014 01:40PM by wildert. |
Paulinho Ferreira Professional Moderator Location: Charlotte, NC Join Date: 03/15/2007 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 721 Rally Car: Honda Civic |
Brian Klausen Mega Moderator Location: Denmark Join Date: 03/21/2006 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 388 Rally Car: VW Golf GTi 16V |
Well, I don't about him exactly, since different layouts suits different drivers. But we had a fully historic spec'ed 240 Turbo finish 16th OA at that race. Around 2 minutes 10 seconds after the Pug. That most likely has a lot more power than the Peugeot, but it obviously still handled well enough to manage on the somewhat twisty roads. We actually had another historic 240 Turbo finish 19th OA - a little under 1 minuter after the 240 in 16th.
Yes - you are right - given that one particular pre-requisite has been met: The NA engine is mated to a proper sequential gearbox with (very) close ratios. The torque as such does not matter - the hp does. The thing is that the ~140 hp/litre engines are so peaky, that they need to stay within 500 rpm at all times, otherwise there is little to no power. The 1.6 turbos we have in my class, make those 210-220 bhp over at least 2000 rpm. That allows for a very fair amount of driver cock ups, and shitty transmissions. But an NA engine with the same power and the proper transmission will have about the equal potential. ... and that was just Johns point as an extension of mine - and brings us back to the original topic: Don't bother with 220 hp from NA, when the transmission is basically stock, except for the FD. The car will likely be faster with 180 hp, and for a beginner (I don't know about Kurts level of experience) it will most likely be faster, since it has nice wide rev band that allows for driver errors. I would actually venture that even with 220 hp AND the proper transmission, a beginner is still going to be faster in a lower power, but torqueir (sp?) engine. Although that is obviously just about impossible to prove. I actually recall the advice from a (very) renowned Swedish exhaust manifold builder, saying specifically that for those fairly light FWD cars on gravel (that's a glove that fits well here), absolute power was not as important as a more linear and even power delivery. Again - 180 hp is going to save a lot of money, and most likely be faster - at least if the roads make at least a few turns here and there . That money can be spent on doing more events, and the money saved from not having to rebuild a high strung engine often due to wear, tear or actual failure, can be put towards seat time as well.
And once again I have to state that I have no clue about Kurts level of experience - so this may not apply to him at all - but it does make sense to a lot of rookies. Brgrds Brian
|
Roderick Thomas Super Moderator Location: Houston, Texas Join Date: 02/02/2014 Age: Settling Down Posts: 42 Rally Car: I have one now |
John Vanlandingham Infallible Moderator Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA Join Date: 12/20/2005 Age: Fossilized Posts: 14,152 Rally Car: Saab 96 V4 |
When I first met Kurt it was about 20 years ago...He had just won our Group 2 class at one of our veeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry fast smooth events in Pennsylvania called STPR or Susquehanna Trails Pro Rally.... As I mentioned to Paulinho when he was trying to scold me for suggesting we should find Kurt a nice 240, Kurt comes from a big family and one of his older brothers rally Volvos in the late 70s to early/mid 80s and his brother took him out to events when he was 5-6 years old.... so it was very funny when he comes up to me with big smiles when he saw my beautiful Saab 96--beautiful thanks to a very good paint job from "the old original Dave Clark"--- Kurt said something like "WOW! And old Saab! I haven't seen one of these since i was this high!--(he then splained how Brother would take him along--that's how he caught the disease) and then he said "You're just here fun fun, right?" And as I always say "Yep just a little fun" We had a long and good fight, but as happens when the heat gets turned up, the Germans always crack and the powerful V4 kept going (despite some real blunders) and he beat the car to pieces trying to win..but dammit he DNFed with 2 stages ---a "up and back" 20 miler or 33.4km stage we drive up, re-group and come back..remaining.. So I won...a nice way to celebrate back on gravel after a 2 year lay-off. But as you may have seen repeated again and again by a few ex-spurts here, I never did anything ever..anywhere..It was first US National but a win in hotly contested class means nothing ever... So Kurt was pretty damn quick then and aside from these infruiating fuel problems---and his extremely advanced age  (Gasp! WTF I think I'm 15-18 years older than him so double GASP! for me)  he's been doing very good since he's come back with what is very modest spec in engine, gearbox and suspension..and mixing times i sekund-strid with boys with decent spec modern machines..
So Kurt's awesome and as Gene constantly says to us all in reference to me, "You're not.." By the was, was it Sven-Åke Angerd från förra-detta JT Tuning i Limmared who you were referring to? Cause he says the same. John Vanlandingham Sleezattle, WA, USA Vive le Prole-le-ralliat www.rallyrace.net/jvab CALL +1 206 431-9696 Remember! Pacific Standard Time is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time. |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.